To identify who destroyed the snowman and assess Jonathan's involvement, one should collect physical evidence, much like in the Case of Jean Gianini, where a lost button and confession were critical. A natural explanation is usually sought first, with skepticism and need for substantial proof similar to reports of religious figures appearing on objects. Expert analysis could provide further insights into the evidence.
To determine the responsible party for destroying the snowman and to evaluate the evidence for or against Jonathan's involvement, one would typically gather physical evidence from the scene, such as footprints, fingerprints, video or photographic evidence, or witness testimony.
Just as in the Case of Jean Gianini, where physical evidence (a lost button) and a confession tied Gianini to the crime, these types of evidence could be valuable in identifying the culprit in the snowman's destruction.
Comparing this to reports of religious figures appearing on pancakes or other objects, in a scientific approach, it's commonly recommended to seek a natural explanation first, applying principles of skepticism and requiring substantial proof before considering supernatural or extraordinary claims.
Regarding the snowman, if footprints of a particular shoe type were found, and Jonathan had shoes matching this description, that would support the claim against him.
If Jonathan had an alibi or there was evidence of others with a motive, this might refute the claim. In any case, just as Dr. Henry Herbert Goddard showed in Gianini's trial with his expertise, expert analysis might shed light on the situation, using forensic methods to draw conclusions from the evidence.